Felix Salmon

Should we be worried about stock-market illiquidity?

By Felix Salmon
October 18, 2011


When volatility rises, so do bid-offer spreads. That’s entirely natural — volatility means danger, and a higher chance that the market will move against you if you’re a market-maker. So you require a bigger spread between your bid and offer prices before you’re willing to trade.

But does that mean, in the words of the WSJ, that “cracks are appearing deep in the workings of the stock market”? And looking at the chart above, would you agree with this?

In some ways, investors would be expected to leave the market in uncertain times, but traders say the exodus of late is striking and underscores the nervousness of market participants, and the lack of willingness of many to step in to trade.

it seems to me that insofar as illiquidity is something separate from volatility, bid/ask spreads have actually been less volatile than the VIX.

And I’m far from convinced that bid/ask spreads in the 4-5bp range are particularly harmful. Not so long ago, remember, NYSE stocks traded in eighths of a dollar — which means that on a $20 stock, the smallest possible bid/ask spread was more than 60bp. And Europe is going so far as to try to increase the cost of trading: its mooted financial transactions tax is being pegged at about 10bp.

Large investors always complain that they can’t get good execution, in much the same way that large exporters always complain that their currency is too strong. When bid/ask spreads go up, they complain about that; when bid/ask spreads go down, they complain that they can only trade in small size at the quoted spreads.

It’s worth remembering, too, that the kind of liquidity measured by bid/ask spreads — the minute-to-minute and second-to-second ability to buy or sell as much stock as you want without moving the market — is precisely the kind of thing that high-frequency trading shops exist to provide. If you want to encourage that kind of liquidity, fine — but the flipside of doing so is always that they risk disappearing the minute you actually need them.

Overall, stock-market liquidity concerns are pretty much the least of my worries right now. We managed to navigate all the way through the financial crisis without any real liquidity problems in the stock market at all, and even on its worst days, today’s stock market is vastly more liquid than it was, say, a decade ago during the dot-com boom and bust.

Indeed, the anecdotes purportedly demonstrating the market’s illiquidity say something very different to me:

One well-known manager of a large hedge fund said he recently tried to buy $250 million of shares of Tempur-Pedic International Inc., a mattress maker with a nearly $4 billion market value. The manager, who declined to speak on the record, says he gave up after his initial order of $20 million of shares pushed prices of the stock up too far.

What we’re seeing here is someone trying to take a very large stake of more than 6% in Tempur-Pedic — and expecting to do so without moving the price much. In an efficient market, someone making such a big play in a company should move the market upwards. When a big buyer comes in to the market, prices go up. That’s how markets are meant to work.

At some point in the future, if the ETF craze continues to grow at its current pace, it’s possible that so much trading will be taking place in ETFs that individual stocks are going to become harder and harder to trade. That’s a theoretical worry. But it hasn’t happened yet. Instead, we’re just seeing markets behave entirely rationally, with bid/ask spreads reflecting broader stock-market volatility. That’s not a cracked market. It’s an efficient one.

34 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Felix, you gotta step back and take a look at reality for a moment…

I could sell every share of every stock in my portfolio in half a second. I would get prices that are within a penny of the quoted share price (i.e. a small percentage of the daily swings).

Isn’t that the definition of liquidity? What good would it do me to get a price that is a tenth of a penny better per share? (On a trade of 1000 shares, that is just $1, a fraction of the commission I would pay.) What good would it do me to sell in 10 milliseconds rather than 500 milliseconds?

A certain amount of liquidity is important. It is potentially valuable to be able to liquidate your entire position in a single day (and admittedly institutional investors can’t do so — tough for them). But millisecond liquidity matters only to HFT computers and the leeches that run them, not to real people.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

HFT exists to provide liquidity? Coulda fooled me. I thought they existed to make money. They are “allowed” to exist to provide liquidity. Big difference!

Posted by FCBonanno | Report as abusive

FCB, the HFT traders don’t provide useful liquidity (their liquidity exists only on the millisecond scale).

Imagine walking into a jewelry store and seeing a customer ready to purchase a necklace for $200. You step in front of that customer and offer to buy the necklace from the store for $199. You immediately turn around and sell it to the customer for $200.

That is the essence of HFT trading. They are very careful to avoid purchasing a security unless there is an IMMEDIATE buyer willing to pay more than they just did. They do not hold a significant portfolio of securities for sale. They do not step in as buyers when others are backing away from the market. They are purely intermediaries, taking profit from transactions that would occur with or without them.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

What FCBonanno Said. The dolts at the FT reviewed the “academic literature” on HFT and determined that it said HFT is good. (British reading comprehension has apparently declined significantly over the years; I blame Wayne Rooney and/or Margaret Thatcher, since the effect of Poodle Boy on your homeland hasn’t fully hit yet.)

In fact, the reasonable conclusion, and statement, was that Market Making is Good, and HFT is therefore good =if they are serving the role of market makers.=

If ETFs are really the future, then there is no purpose in having a stock market.

Posted by klhoughton | Report as abusive

@TFF – the first point in your comment is that you can sell everything you own within 1 cent of the quoted price. there’s a reason that 1c is down from 16c… HFT – competition in market making. You are the winner.

ps – your example “Imagine walking into a jewelry store and seeing a customer ready to purchase a necklace for $200. You step in front of that customer and offer to buy the necklace from the store for $199. You immediately turn around and sell it to the customer for $200.”

does not describe the reality of high frequency trading (or any trading) at all. if a customer is ready to pay $200, you have to pay $201 to get the necklace – not $199.

The correct HFT analogy is that your retail orders get internalized (that’s why you’ll see fills at 29.995 when you try to lift a $30 offer), and when I go to sell the necklace, the $200 bid doesn’t get hit – instead i sell it for $200.01, to an internalization algo who then offers it out higher, hoping that the guy bidding $200 will lift the higher offer. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

Who wants to trade in a market littered with HFT skewed trading, rampant insider trading, and fraudulently marketed financial products sold by permabull con men? My guess is all the cash on the sidelines is waiting for the market to clean up or drop to acceptable (considering the risk all of the above pose to pricing) prices.

Posted by sleepyinhohokus | Report as abusive

Trend following algorythms are levitating the market away from the fundamental investor. When volatility spikes and the HFTs go into sell mode or shut down it takes a plunge to bring the true holder of risk back to the stocks.

When volitality spikes, HFT provide less or no liquidity. Their liquidity provision fails when it would be needed the most. As such they are free riders and parasites on the stock market.

Limit quote increments to 1 cent. Make every quote/order stand in the market for at least 1 minute, unmodifiable for 1 minute. Result is a better market. You either want to buy the security or you get the hell out of the market.

Posted by Finster | Report as abusive

I don’t believe HFT impacts liquidity for the reasons everyone else gives, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for the financial system. HFT doesn’t materially impact long term traders, but it adds instability to the system, as they are all running some kind of algorithm that cannot take into account what the other trading algorithms do. This can lead to unpredicted spikes, not just in individual assets, but in markets, and then, economies. It’s tough to legislate it away, but there is a way to make it less attractive.

If capital gains were taxed at a rate inversely proportional to the length of time held, a lot of the incentive for HST would go away. It would also reduce the occurrence of bubbles, as the high tax rate on short term gains prevents most of the gains from being re-invested in an inflationary market.

Tax gains held for less than one year at 70%, and 60% for 1-2 yrs, 40% for 2-3 yrs, 30% for 3-5 yrs, 20% for 5-7 yrs, and 10% for 7 years or more. It would dampen the effects of speculation on all markets by limiting the rewards without reducing the risk.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

“there’s a reason that 1c is down from 16c… HFT – competition in market making. You are the winner.”

You attribute that improvement all to HFT? I would have thought that automated market systems would also play a role.

Besides, I was responding to Felix’ concern that liquidity is drying up. 1c spreads are not indicative of an illiquid market in any normal sense of the word.

And while I might be the “winner” of lower spreads and more efficient trades, the 16c spreads you warn against wouldn’t increase my transaction costs particularly dramatically. Most investors trade infrequently.

“Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.”

That’s the advantage of front-running. If you KNOW a big order is coming in, then you KNOW the buy queue will be lifted. HFT sifts the trading action for signals that indicate a direction, but without the certainty of being 100% correct. Because of that uncertainty, even a very low transaction tax would shut it down — and I wouldn’t be shocked if periods of moderately higher volatility (greater uncertainty) were also sufficient to break the game.

“if a customer is ready to pay $200, you have to pay $201 to get the necklace – not $199.”

Not if you front-run them. HFT isn’t exactly front-running buy orders, but (if I understand correctly) it is seeking evidence of such trends in the order queues.

KidDynamite, you seem to be arguing that every transaction needs a middleman, and thus we should be grateful to the HFT traders for providing that necessary service efficiently. (And I agree, it is quite efficient with a very small tax on each transaction. They make their profit on volume.) But is this literally true? Are there not enough active participants in the market to clear buy/sell orders WITHOUT a middleman? If so, then that “small tax” on each transaction is unnecessary and leeching profits from the investors.

I don’t think HFT is a big deal. The profits we’re talking about are small in relation to the overall trading activity. Yet I do fear that it obscures the true liquidity in the market, leading to stupid mistakes like the May “flash crash” sell order and perhaps other volatility. And I’ll object strongly to suggestions that HFT is necessary or positive for the investors.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

“If capital gains were taxed at a rate inversely proportional to the length of time held”

If a security held for a year is taxed at 15%, then capital gains on a security held for a second would be taxed at 4733510%.

Yeah, that would put the HFT traders out of business pretty quickly!!! :)

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

KenG_CA, the UK had a system like that. Porsches all round for the equity swaps desk.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

DannyB, Porsches would be quite a downgrade from the multiple 8-digit homes they get to buy now.

Not that I get how equity swaps would be immune to the short term tax.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

@TFF: wrote “you seem to be arguing that every transaction needs a middleman”

- no – every transaction needs a COUNTERPARTY. Competition (from HFT participants, amongst others) to be that counterparty has resulted in a tremendous EXECUTION environment for retail investors – the best ever, in fact. Lowest spreads, lowest commissions, best access to information, etc etc etc. The one that’s most relevant to our discussion at present is the low spreads, of course.

While others complain and demonize, I, a retail investor/trader (who happens to have expertise in execution, as a result of my former career) will enjoy it. This execution environment almost cannot get better: near zero bid/ask spreads. Love it. I can buy almost as much of any stock I want to trade with 1 penny of impact. Never before in my life has that been true. I don’t want it shut down – that’s precisely the point.

(I am ignoring your mention of the phrase “front running” because I think you know it’s false, incorrect, and misleading. ALL “trading” is “front-running” in the sense that you used the word in that we’re all trying to figure out where stock prices are going based on current information. The HFT algos just take that to the next level, reading the “tape” faster and more efficiently than humans ever could. It’s the very definition of “Trading” though)

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

“every transaction needs a COUNTERPARTY”

Typically, transactions involve one party who wants to buy something and another who wants to sell it. When HFT gets involved, it is as a middleman — playing buyer against the seller, then turning around and playing seller against the buyer.

You could argue that this is what any trader does. Except most traders provide an actual service in the transaction. They transport, warehouse, and market the goods being traded. It isn’t at all clear to me what service the HFT traders provide.

You talk about a “tremendous execution environment” in which I can buy a stock at $20.62 and sell it a second later at $20.61. I’m not sure why I would want to do that, but I could if I wanted.

In a “less tremendous” execution environment, the spreads would be wider and the executions much less precise. That stock that I bought at $20.62 might next trade at $20.50. Or the next tick could be at $20.74. It would average out to the same result in the end (trading is naturally a zero sum game), but of course there is a chance that the retail investor would be stuck with the short end of every single transaction. (That may already be the case, but with 1-cent spreads it hardly matters.)

“ALL “trading” is “front-running” in the sense that you used the word in that we’re all trying to figure out where stock prices are going based on current information”

Yes and no… There is a very wide grey area between “investing” and “speculating”. My own market activity (probably averaging 50% annual turnover in my tax-deferred accounts) could be described as a mix of the two. When holding periods are measured in seconds, or milliseconds, they are pretty much pure speculation — and the “front-running” label is not an inappropriate description of their strategy.

It is definitely not necessary for markets to have middlemen. However, as you observe, the parameters of the market define its efficiency. In a highly efficient market (such as we have), there are slim pickings for the middlemen. HFT traders can exact only a SMALL tax on each transaction, and any less efficient middlemen get pushed to the side.

If we add friction to the market, locking out the HFT traders, you might reasonably argue that the spreads would widen until those less-efficient middlemen can collect enough of a profit to overcome the friction. Once saw an online game with commodity markets — despite a 0.5% transaction tax, there were very large inefficiencies in those markets, easily exploitable by even a novice trader like myself. (Of course I imagine most people were more interested in playing the game than in studying the commodity markets, so traders had little competition.)

I wouldn’t mind a less-liquid market if exploitable inefficiencies remained low. That said, it is possible that the two go hand in hand?

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

I am looking at the 1 penny spread on the SPY, which is 1.6 basis points. I am also looking at the S&P 500 bid vs. ask, which is 40 SPX cents wide, or 3.6 basis points.

Not how to square it with the data in the post.

I do see that if I sum up all 500 stock spreads, it adds up to $17. But before the era of HFT and decimalization, this spread must have been over $100.

So I am not sure what we are supposed to be worrying about here.

Posted by caveatBettor | Report as abusive

KenG_CA, vanilla equity swap is where you agree to pay me dividends and hand me the stock at some point in the future. In return, I “lend” you money which the dividends pay the coupon and the stock pays the premium. Make it 7 years tenor and you haven’t sold your stock so you pay 10% and as long as I am charging you less than 60% you are in the money.

You ever checked how much money capital gains tax actually brings in on financial investments?

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

Danny, I don’t see how that would impact short term speculating – the people who do that don’t really care about dividends, they want to buy and sell assets (not necessarily just stocks) over short terms, and aren’t interested in dividends. It also won’t replace HFT. It sounds like another form of shorting, which isn’t the target of this change.

Taxes on capital gains don’t bring in as much as it should because the rate is too low, and it skews investment decisions by management to the short term. But please be more specific about what you mean by “financial” investments. The capital gains tax applies to trades on all kinds of assets.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

Well most trades are not HFT ones. You will notice that whenever people talk about HFT they magically change the goalposts to “algorithmic trading” which is not the same thing.

It is not a form of shorting, it is a form of selling without selling. Was popular for circumventing lock-in provisions and CGT.

Well there is not a technical definition of financial asset but I would say it is something bought and sold for where the primary purpose is the financial gain.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

algorithms drive HFT, so while not all algorithmic trading is HFT, all HFT is driven by algorithms, as humans just aren’t capable of decisions and executions on a microsecond scale.

That kind of vehicle will not displace most short term trading. It doesn’t scale, as every deal must be manually arranged.

And if you include all assets, it’s not going to cover flipping houses or bonds or most of the other speculative instruments. I’d be willing to take my chances and make this trade.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

Then you find other ways round it. I can guarantee with 70% to play with that only people with small gains will pay because on normal sizes that tax will pay for alot of legal, accounting and banking advice and with large assets like houses there are a number of ways round a 70% tax.

I suspect in terms of actual shares changing hands, once you factor out the same person buying and selling the same shares over and over, that HFT is not a major player in the automated trading space. Have no hard data on that, unlike KidDynamite, I never worked on the “dark side”. I also suspect most shares are bought and held.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

klhoughton, care to explain that in more detail? As someone who went to school under Thatcher, I guess I don’t have your deep insight into what exactly is the beef with HFT firms.

Also I was under the impression ALL businesses existed to make money and must have missed the lofty heights of the 60s and 70s education that taught me why that was wrong.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

@TFF – the first few paragraphs of your recent comment highlight a real misconception/disconnect. you wrote:

“Typically, transactions involve one party who wants to buy something and another who wants to sell it. When HFT gets involved, it is as a middleman — playing buyer against the seller, then turning around and playing seller against the buyer.

You could argue that this is what any trader does. Except most traders provide an actual service in the transaction. They transport, warehouse, and market the goods being traded. It isn’t at all clear to me what service the HFT traders provide.”

when you buy a stock, the seller doesn’t provide you any service except for selling the stock to you. Regardless of if that seller is David Einhorn, A T-3000 HFT algo, or Warren Buffett – you now own the stock. All three sellers provided the same service to you: SUPPLY. When you sell, it’s the opposite of course: you care about one thing: DEMAND. That’s the only service being provided, and HFT provides it just like the other buyers/sellers.

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

“That’s the only service being provided, and HFT provides it just like the other buyers/sellers.”

KidDynamite, I think you are viewing it from the perspective of an individual investor buying/selling shares. My objections and (mis?)-characterizations are looking at it from a societal level.

What you say is correct. When I buy shares, it makes no difference to me who I buy them from. Yet it doesn’t make sense to me to say the HFT is “supplying” the stock when they didn’t own it even five minutes ago. There is a very fundamental difference in that between an HFT trader and Warren Buffett.

That said, I suppose we have always had parasites in our financial markets. The HFT traders draw less blood than their predecessors. And I’m not convinced that they are truly responsible for the volatility — have a theory about that one…

“Well most trades are not HFT ones.”

I thought I had read figures in the 50% to 70% range? (Anything above 50% implies that HFT algorithms often end up trading with each other.) But I might have misread it, or the statistics might have been misrepresented.

“I was under the impression ALL businesses existed to make money”

My personal belief is that a business is only worth offering if it provides service to society that is commensurate with the compensation. A close relative worked for several years on Wall Street, and “was paid well for hard work”, but I never bought that line. He is very talented and could have accomplished great things in another career (which he has finally decided to pursue).

Legal and moral logic may reach different conclusions.

“I also suspect most shares are bought and held.”

Perhaps? Or “created and held”? Would be interested to know what proportion of S&P500 shares are still with the family/heirs of the founders, or with executives/directors who received them as compensation. I agree with your perception that the 1% of shares that trade daily represent (mostly) the same certificates trading hands many times over.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

“At some point in the future, if the ETF craze continues to grow at its current pace, it’s possible that so much trading will be taking place in ETFs that individual stocks are going to become harder and harder to trade.”

I wanted to comment on this line…

If I understand ETFs correctly, they are not actually independent securities. Rather, each ETF share represents a fractional ownership of a basket of stocks held by the ETF sponsor. You can buy 1000 shares of SPY either by purchasing them from somebody else OR by purchasing the appropriate basket of the underlying stocks and conveying them to the ETF sponsor in exchange for “new” shares. The exceptional liquidity and efficiency of the market prevents the ETF from ever trading off the indexed average by more than a few cents.

Thus any imbalance in buying/selling ETF shares will naturally translate into equivalent buying/selling of the underlying individual securities. If people pile into SPY tomorrow morning, then that will drive the price a few cents above the indexed average and some trading desk will jump in to supply new SPY shares (through purchase/transfer of the underlying securities).

So what happens if (in a period of light trading) somebody dumps 10 million SPY shares on the market?

(1) The price for SPY falls a few cents below the index.
(2) The trading desks jump in with orders to purchase SPY, convert them to the underlying securities, and sell those.
(3) The underlying securities get swamped with sell orders THAT ARE NOT PRICE SENSITIVE.

The original sell order depends only on the price of the SPY. As long as the majority of the individual securities maintain their value, the index won’t greatly sag and (presumably) the SPY won’t fall much more than that. Yet individual securities might see the bottom punched out of their buy queue, with the price falling precipitously until the (relatively few) fundamental traders active in the market step in to supply the liquidity.

I believe the HFT algorithms are designed to sit out periods of exceptional volatility? (If not, they should be. Hard to make a profit when the patterns break down.) They aren’t going to either create the problem or solve it. But I think the SPY/index arbitrage has the potential to confuse market action by creating large/sudden movements?

This is less of an issue for index funds, partly because they trade only once a day, partly because the fund manager has broad leeway in how it chooses to approximate the index. But ETFs could represent a serious market risk.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

“So what happens if (in a period of light trading) somebody dumps 10 million SPY shares on the market?”

When a Spy market-maker’s bid gets hit, I’d guess his algo automatically sells emini futures — and may also sell the most liquid large-cap components of the Spx index itself.

Many years ago (01-03) if you hit my machine’s bid I’d be long cash (spyders) and short futures — and long basis risk, which I didn’t hedge because I was never long/short more than ~1000 eminis intraday.

Today I’d guess market-makers have more tools (products & exchanges) with which to hedge their positions, plus they get small rebates from exchanges for being willing to show bids & offers. Market-makers still have to manage their basis risk but iirc even during the Flash Crash the Spy/Spu basis never widened more than 2 (or 3?) handles, which by today’s standards was a huge move.

But remember back in the October 87 crash, the basis — the spread between cash & futures — got as wide as 20+ full handles for hours on end — which is another way of saying: the market was effectively closed.

Posted by dedalus | Report as abusive

Interesting, dedalus!

So you think the arbitrage works mostly through the options markets? Guess that helps to spread the weight of the order, but couldn’t a large order knock out the futures trading as well? Or are we talking another order of magnitude there? And at some point, I presume the action in the futures market would spill over into the individual securities…

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

The problem is that most of this activity creates huge risks for society without contributing anything positive. Banking is a useful function…M&A is a useful function….trading on your own account…not so much.

Posted by mfw13 | Report as abusive

tff, whenever i read that statistic it always seems to refer to algo trading but then reported as hft.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive


The Spy market-makers I know — all 3 of ‘em! — hedge their cash positions with futures, not options, probably because futures are simpler & cheaper. One e-mini = 500 Spy shares.

“…but couldn’t a large order knock out the futures trading as well?”

I’d say: yes. Michael Avery was the proximate cause of the Flash Crash when his algo sold 75,000 eminis — equivalent to ~ $4.1 billion notional.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64 H6G620100518

Avery had done an equally large-sized trade of e-minis months earlier but that order was executed over 5 hours. On May 6 his algo executed the sell order in just 20 minutes, which was very stupid & costly (for his fund investors).

See the last paragraph, page 2 of the Executive Summary of the SEC report: http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/mar ketevents-report.pdf

Avery’s sell order not only caused the spot & futures markets to selloff, obviously, but I’m told that it also caused the spread (or basis) between spot & futures to move too — which only happens when there’s an enormous amount of one-way trading & access to the cash market is unavailable, which also occurred, briefly, on May 6.

fyi: check out pages 25–35 of “Panic: The Story of Modern Financial Insanity” (2009), to learn just how bad the old human specialist system was.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXUOASH Vf_YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_ summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Posted by dedalus | Report as abusive

Thx, dedalus. My unsophistication shows sometimes. :) Can you tell that I don’t play with either options or futures? (If I did, I imagine I would be clearer on the difference.)

Any suggestions on ways to better buffer the system so that “flash crash” collapses don’t happen? The May crash was the most significant, but I’ve heard that there have been several smaller crashes in individual securities since. Clearly the system is not presently stable.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

“cracks are appearing deep in the workings of the stock market”. Nothing more than the usual post-Murdoch WSJ hyperbole and fear mongering.

Posted by tyler7 | Report as abusive

TFF, KidDynamite has written good stuff on the flash crash & what might be done to avoid its recurrence. I pretty much agree with him:

http://kiddynamitesworld.com/that-flash- crash-thing/

Posted by dedalus | Report as abusive

Yes, banning “market orders” might work. If I ever had a trade execute more than 1% off the price at which I submitted it, I would be seriously shocked. Ought to make them all limit orders (just lazy, really is no excuse).

Otherwise, he mostly argues that stupid algorithms do more damage to themselves than to anybody else. To which I agree. (So why did the NASDAQ cancel those trades?) I’m not a big fan of “stop loss” orders either. Ought to have a better reason for selling a security than the fact that it is suddenly cheaper than it was before.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

Hey, thanks a lot for this post I found it really interesting and insightful. Recently I have been using some investment analysis software which has really kept me on track with my finances. There is a really good Equity pricing tool too. It was all a bit daunting at first but now it has been amazing for me because it is online tool I can access their help forums 24/7. Thanks again for the post.

Posted by Ksween | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/